I think by default people don't come to the idea to use mark_safe
except on occasions, where they notice their output is not the desired
one. Then investigations on rendering to achieve the right output
lead to mark_safe() and by that time the developers have enough
knowledge how the whole stuff works internally.

Yes, people read *mark_safe* as *MAKE_safe*, I'm not sure yet, but I'm
liking the idea of *trust_html*, I feel like more developers will
understand what they're doing.
Maybe the docs could have more detailed notes about HTML inputs that you
want to mark them safe, one thing is trust "<span>" another is trust "{{
post.content }}". Rich text editors play a big part of beginner devs, a lot
of people start with Django and don't quite understand Python or Web
Security yet, that's just reality.
Django it is not to blame, but I think that's a small change with big
impact.
On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 10:07:12 AM UTC-4, Adam Johnson wrote:

I am also in favour of a rename without deprecating the old name.
I like 'trust_html' - it's still similarly short but as Tom says it
implies more than 'mark_safe' does.
On 22 February 2018 at 08:30, Tom Forbes <t...@tomforb.es <javascript:>>
wrote:

What about just 'trust_html'? The dangerous part is quite context
dependent (and a bit of mouth-full), but at the core you are trusting the
HTML. Hopefully it follows that you should not trust html with user input
that hasn't been escaped.
On 22 Feb 2018 13:10, "Anthony King" <anthon...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
wrote:
I entirely agree with renaming `mark_safe`. Though it's name is correct,
it doesn't convey the gravity of what this actually does.
However I'm unsure on the `dangerously_trust_html` name. It wouldn't be
dangerous to trust the literal "<small>Some Content</small>", for example.
Perhaps it could be something a bit more explicit. `no_escape(string)`?
This assumes that most have at least heard of escaping.
On 22 February 2018 at 12:16, Josh Smeaton <josh.s...@gmail.com
<javascript:>> wrote:

The concern isn't overusing an API. It's not understanding the proper
use case for it.
"mark safe" can sound like the API is doing sanitation so it can
encourage developers to use it incorrectly. I'm fairly sure I've done this
myself.
The intended meaning is "this output is **already** safe" but the name
doesn't convey that meaning clearly enough.
What the proposal is designed to do is convey the "I trust this output"
meaning of the API. I'm just wary of enforcing users to change code when
they already use the API correctly.
On Thursday, 22 February 2018 21:08:31 UTC+11, Florian Apolloner wrote:

Yeah, I am also worried about the churn for no gain in my eyes. If
users overuse mark_safe, they will overuse dangerously_trust_html too…
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:41:15 PM UTC+1, Josh Smeaton
wrote:

I agree that the names are misleading and we should probably provide

better names. I'm wary of deprecating the old names because
it'll create a
lot of churn (some of which would be the right thing to do).
Maybe we could

just alias and warn when using the old name, leaving a decision on
deprecation until some time in the future.
On Monday, 29 January 2018 03:14:27 UTC+11, Stuart Cox wrote:

In my experience, misuse of mark_safe() — i.e. marking stuff safe
which *isn’t* actually safe (e.g. HTML from a rich text input) — is
one of the biggest causes of XSS vulnerabilities in Django projects.
The docs warn to be careful, but unfortunately I think Django devs
have just got too used to mark_safe() being *the way* to insert HTML
in a template. And it’s easy for something that was safe when it was
authored (e.g. calling mark_safe() on a hard-coded string) to be

copied / repurposed / adapted into a case which is no longer
be safe (e.g.

that string replaced with a user-provided value).
Some other frameworks use scary sounding names to help reinforce that

there are dangers around similar features, and that this isn’t
something

you should use in everyday work — e.g. React’s
dangerouslySetInnerHTML.
Relatedly, this topic

making it more explicit that mark_safe() refers to being safe for
use in *HTML* contexts (rather than JS, CSS, SQL, etc).
Combining the two, it would be great if Django could rename
mark_safe() to dangerously_trust_html(), |safe to
|dangerously_trust_html, @csrf_exempt to @dangerously_csrf_exempt,
etc.
Developers who know what they’re doing with these could then be

encouraged to create suitable wrappers which handle their use
case safely

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.